Two stones just not sure which way to go.

[patrickd12]

I posted the other day some different stones I was looking at. I wasn't super comfortable with any of them. I've decided that I want an AGS cert if I'm going to make a purchase online because of the additional light evaluation they give. They are both price pretty comparably one is slightly larger but is a 5 clarity the other slight smaller but is a 4 clarity. I would love some honest opinions, both fit my budget well.

http://certs.rapnet.com/userfolders/8258/Certs/RB14902.jpg

http://certs.rapnet.com/userfolders/8258/Certs/RB15594.jpg

Both have H&A inscriptions by AGS, does that mean they are H&A stones or is that just a ploy to get you to think that?

 

[04diamond<3]

definitely the 1.4!

 

[patrickd12]

definitely the 1.4!

Why? Just because of the clarity?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, the first one is too deep. Stick with 62.3 or less. Deeper stones often face-up smaller than they should if less deep. Have you seen the second stone? Are there magnified images? Those aren't my personal favorite measurements, but since it has ideal light performance, it is probably fine. That would be my choice of these two IF it is totally eyeclean. My only other comment is that since AGS can sometimes be softer on color grading, I will tell you that sometimes AGS I color stones are more tinted than I like to see. I'd probably go for GIA in an I color, personally. But I would not buy any stone without a magnified image and an idealscope image.

And no, the inscription could say anything. So it does not necessarily mean a thing!

 

[04diamond<3]

definitely the 1.4!

Why? Just because of the clarity?

No actually, but that is a nice bonus. The aset on the 1.4 looked better than the 1.5 in my opinion. Edit - I didn't see that the 1.4 was 62.5% depth, but it's NOT that bad, and the clarity and aset look better...It's up to you. You don't have to stick with AGS. I'm not sure about how they grade on color. Up until now, I've only heard good things about AGS and this is the first time ever I'm seeing anything about them grading "softer".

 

[diamondseeker2006]

definitely the 1.4!

Why? Just because of the clarity?

No actually, but that is a nice bonus. The aset on the 1.4 looked better than the 1.5 in my opinion. Edit - I didn't see that the 1.4 was 62.5% depth, but it's NOT that bad, and the clarity and aset look better...It's up to you. You don't have to stick with AGS. I'm not sure about how they grade on color. Up until now, I've only heard good things about AGS and this is the first time ever I'm seeing anything about them grading "softer".

I appreciate that you always try to be so helpful! But all I can tell you is to take lots of time to read, read, read, and you will learn more than you can imagine about diamonds here on PS! It takes a long time to learn the basics, and some of us will never reach the knowledge of some of our true expert members. But I learn continually as I read posts by members such as Karl, Yssie, and others. Checking depth and diameter is basic but important, and understanding differences in the labs is, too. Both are great labs with different strengths and weaknesses. That is why we usually ask for images of the stones as well as idealscope images for all stones. These ASETs are computer generated and not actual ones. So I like to see an idealscope at least along with a magnified image of the stone when possible. There is quite a size difference between these two stones, so if size is an important factor to them, I would not choose the smaller, deeper stone.

 

[04diamond<3]

definitely the 1.4!

Why? Just because of the clarity?

No actually, but that is a nice bonus. The aset on the 1.4 looked better than the 1.5 in my opinion. Edit - I didn't see that the 1.4 was 62.5% depth, but it's NOT that bad, and the clarity and aset look better...It's up to you. You don't have to stick with AGS. I'm not sure about how they grade on color. Up until now, I've only heard good things about AGS and this is the first time ever I'm seeing anything about them grading "softer".

I appreciate that you always try to be so helpful! But all I can tell you is to take lots of time to read, read, read, and you will learn more than you can imagine about diamonds here on PS! It takes a long time to learn the basics, and some of us will never reach the knowledge of some of our true expert members. But I learn continually as I read posts by members such as Karl, Yssie, and others. Checking depth and diameter is basic but important, and understanding differences in the labs is, too. Both are great labs with different strengths and weaknesses. That is why we usually ask for images of the stones as well as idealscope images for all stones. These ASETs are computer generated and not actual ones. So I like to see an idealscope at least along with a magnified image of the stone when possible. There is quite a size difference between these two stones, so if size is an important factor to them, I would not choose the smaller, deeper stone.

What? I didn't notice the depth of the 1.4 till after my first post because it's late and I'm tired. I attended GIA and I know what I'm talking about too. The argument on this forum is always "better cut", and so that's why I said IMO the aset on the 1.4 looked better.

 

[Karl_K]

The argument on this forum is always "better cut", and so that's why I said IMO the aset on the 1.4 looked better.

The defects in the computer generated ASET may or may not be present in an actual ASET image of the stone.
One the flip side the opposite is true the other one may not show defects that might show up in an actual ASET image.
The generated images often do not reflect reality.
An opinion of which computer generated image looks better needs that disclaimer.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The argument on this forum is always "better cut", and so that's why I said IMO the aset on the 1.4 looked better.

The defects in the computer generated ASET may or may not be present in an actual ASET image of the stone.
One the flip side the opposite is true the other one may not show defects that might show up in an actual ASET image.
The generated images often do not reflect reality.
An opinion of which computer generated image looks better needs that disclaimer.

Thanks so much, Karl. That is why I never make judgments on a stone based on the computer generated ASET. We always need the diamond images and actual idealscope/ASET images to make an accurate determination.